Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tonitrus]

I've mentioned it before - but today's the latest in the saga of the sub-postmasters which I think is the biggest corporate scandal in the UK in recent years it's an absolute disgrace:

Post Office scandal: What the Horizon saga is all about

It accepted it had previously "got things wrong in [its] dealings with a number of postmasters", and agreed to pay £58m in damages.

The claimants received a share of £12m, after legal fees were paid.

Speaking of another disgrace...

[Sheilbh]

Group litigation on behalf of hundreds of people against a nationalised company with very deep pockets, about an IT system - so combing through 15 years worth of bug reports etc - that the company used to privately prosecute, jail and bankrupt people is expensive. Especially when I think the judge in the High Court mentioned that there'd been something like 30 pre-trial hearings because the Post Office basically fought every single procedural issue they could to try and stop it getting to trial. That's always the challenge with group litigation - just looking at the civil case the claimants had 5 barristers (including 1 QC) and were employing a good West End firm.

And if it wasn't for the very specific facts and weirdness it'd be the most important case in English contract law ever

It'll be easier and cheaper now for other sub-postmasters, especially those who were prosecuted, because the court's made its decision so the Post Office can't dispute the facts any more.

Edit: And it's worth pointing the claimants probably aren't paying that. They've got a settlement of £12 million which for them to agree in this case would probably be above what they'd get from the court and in addition the Post Office have to pay their legal costs. So I don't think it's like they would otherwise have got £58 million. Again based on everything I've read in this case it's very likely the Post Office would have been given a costs order to pay the claimants' legal costs.

[celedhring]

Yeah but both spent basically nothing from my American perspective.

Oh for sure - I mean a UK general election for 650 seats will cost a lot less than a competitive Senate race.

You just made me check the Spanish figures for comparison. €50 million total, with the two largest parties (PSOE/PP) spending around €10m each. Haven't run the math but it looks like we spend slightly more per capita. Still, probably less than they spend in the US to elect a county coroner. 

[Josquius]

Yeah but both spent basically nothing from my American perspective.

Oh for sure - I mean a UK general election for 650 seats will cost a lot less than a competitive Senate race.

I am very skeptical of these numbers and how much value there is in spending controls these days.
I suspect much of the tories and labours spending was via very off the record means.

But what are they spending it on? They can't have TV adverts outside specified party political broadcasts - there's only so much you can spend on targeted online advertising and leaflets. And if the Lib Dems can spend over £10 million on the normal stuff I feel like they could afford to learn what the super-secret spending options for the Tories and Labour are.

Heavily in online.
A lot of stuff with various special interest groups and very loosely connected associations and all that sort of thing. With negative campaigning it's very easy to not say who you'd rather people vote for instead.
Obviously the tories will be most to blame for this but wouldn't surprise me if Labour does a little.

[celedhring]

FWIW, in Spain parties still spend a disproportionate amount of their campaign funds in good ole mailed leaflets, like nearly 50% of the total. It seems a bit unrefined as a campaigning method (and it's often targeted as wasteful spending to be reduced) but nearly every party does it. Online advertising is 10% of the total.

It's a bit like in the UK, though, Spanish parties are heavily limited on what they can spend on (i.e. can't buy ads in the media outside their allocation), so they don't have many options.

[Sheilbh]

Been a fair few of these polls now showing a "no" surge in Scotland. Part of this is probably the vaccine program - the last few months have seen a majority polled think Brexit was the right decision which hasn't been the case in the polls since 2016. The other bit is possibly thinking through what Brexit means for independence - in particular the necessity of a border.


It feels like Scotland might be entering a phase where the SNP/pro-indy forces have enough votes to keep winning parliamentary elections/forming a government but not enough to actually get independence. Which is probably the worst of all worlds.

On the other hand Anas Sarwar is doing quite well as new Labour leader.

[Josquius]

Hopefully this brexit nonsense will go away soon as it becomes clear Europe isn't the disaster area the papers are presenting and is merely a few weeks behind the UK, on both positive (vaccines) and negative (the British strain third wave) metrics.
It really is fascinating to see the weird angle the media is managing to put on this.

Of course even without this story fading into the past it'll obviously be flipping anyway with the UKs muted post corona recovery and hard borders biting.

I do think Scottish independence is virtually inevitable now. The pro side is far more energised than the opposition, as can be expected about such things. It not looking like being the massive disaster that 2014 promised to be will only build a lack of interest from moderate opponents.

[The Larch]

It feels like Scotland might be entering a phase where the SNP/pro-indy forces have enough votes to keep winning parliamentary elections/forming a government but not enough to actually get independence. Which is probably the worst of all worlds.

So, a Catalonia kind of situation, then. 

[Sheilbh]

It feels like Scotland might be entering a phase where the SNP/pro-indy forces have enough votes to keep winning parliamentary elections/forming a government but not enough to actually get independence. Which is probably the worst of all worlds.

So, a Catalonia kind of situation, then. 

Exactly - full Catalanisation.

That plus contemplation of unlawful referendums. Can't wait

Of course even without this story fading into the past it'll obviously be flipping anyway with the UKs muted post corona recovery and hard borders biting.

For what it's worth all the forecasts project the UK having stronger growth than the Eurozone or EU. That mainly reflects the fact that our economy was, like every other part of our society, was worse hit by the pandemic than most of Europe.

But from a political perspective I think it is going to be a challenge.

[Sheilbh]

So the Cummings-Johnson war has escalated with the Daily Mail running a front page splash that Johnson ranted that he would rather "let the bodies pile high in their thousands" than order a third lockdown (in the end - he did both) which is definitely the latest Cummings leak. That comment has been denied by Number 10 but corroborated by Robert Peston:

The truth about Boris's 'bodies pile high in their thousands' comment
26 April 2021, 12:02pm

There is an incredible amount of hysteria and noise being generated by the conflict between Boris Johnson and his former chief aide, Dominic Cummings. So maybe it is useful for me to share what I know about three big claims:

1) The Prime Minister did say he would rather see 'bodies pile high in their thousands' than order a third lockdown (as reported in the Daily Mail); 2) The cabinet secretary Simon Case still believes Cummings may be the 'Chatty Rat' who leaked details about November's lockdown; 3) the refurbishment of the Prime Minister's flat was originally to be funded by Tory party donors, even though on Friday the Prime Minister said he had been paying for it.

To be clear, Downing Street has issued a straight denial that the Prime Minister ranted in that extreme way about how there would never be a third lockdown (which, of course, there has been). That said, I am told he shouted it in his study just after he agreed to the second lockdown 'in a rage'. The doors to the Cabinet room and outer office were allegedly open and supposedly a number of people heard. I am bothering to repeat this assertion about what the Prime Minister said because two eyewitnesses – or perhaps I should say 'ear witnesses' – have corroborated the Daily Mail's account to me. Also these sources insist they did not brief the Mail, so that suggests there are three sources. Second, in respect of the so-called 'Rat' and the 30 October leak that a lockdown would be imminently announced, I was texted by a source at 18.30 on that day as follows:

'I understand that a long Covid meeting between PM, Chancellor, Gove and Hancock was held this afternoon. 99 per cent likely there will be a full national lockdown from next Wed or Thurs, currently expected to last until 1 Dec.'

As it happens, that was all true, though it would not be confirmed until the following evening, after the government frantically scrambled to put flesh on the policy so that it could be announced. I can tell you that the text was not from Cummings or anyone within a mile of him. And the reason I can share that with you, without breaching journalistic etiquette, should be obvious: if the text had come from Cummings, I would have put the news straight out, since he was a 'horse's mouth' authority on this stuff. But I didn't broadcast or write about the lockdown until the following day, when – having spoken with a series of ministers and officials – I was then in a position to disclose in detail the terms and timing of the lockdown. I am certain the cabinet secretary already knows Cummings wasn't my source – since he has seen the phones of all relevant suspects, and will therefore have read my texts to a very large number of officials and ministers seeking comment and secondary sourcing for the lockdown revelation.

As I said, I wouldn't have needed to send those texts if Cummings had been the source. Make of that what you will. But the 'chatty rat' who contacted me was not Cummings. Third, I asked the Prime Minister at a press conference a few weeks ago who originally settled the invoices for the refurbishment of his apartment. He pointedly did not answer – though at the end of last week a government minister said for the very first time that the Prime Minister had been shouldering the costs.

Cummings claimed on Friday that the Prime Minister's original plan was for donors to pay to redecorate and refurnish his Downing Street home. The unanswered question is whether donors – or anyone other than the PM and the Cabinet Office – settled the decorators' initial bills, which ran to tens of thousands of pounds. There is a payment and audit trail. So the explosive question – who originally paid – can be definitively answered. If the PM and Cabinet Secretary want it answered.

Written byRobert Peston

Robert Peston is Political Editor of ITV News and host of the weekly political discussion show Peston. This article originally appeared on his ITV News blog.

The bodies piling high comment strikes me as something that could cut through and could be really damaging. Also the flat refurbishment strikes me as the type of sleaze that people will understand and be pretty merciless about.

This all strikes me as getting a little bit dangerous for Johnson (especially given that Tory MPs have never liked Johnson and have no compunction in backstabbing their leaders - unlike Labour ) - in particular, I'm not sure that Cummings is anywhere near finished leaking damaging things

Edit: And in a sign of that Johnson was apparently personally phoning editors with his spin about Cummings leaking all these texts etc. On the one hand that is more naturally Johnsonian - he is, after all, a creature of Fleet Street - but on the other it is incredible

Edit: And a quote from an "ally of Dominic Cummings" that he probably won't stop until Johnson leaves office

[Tamas]

[Sheilbh]

I thought you, in particular, would enjoy this Iran-Iraq war of words.

[Tamas]

[Josquius]

In local news....
The Tories look determined to try and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Hartlepool.
Who have they picked for their candidate? A local loud mouth pound shop Trump who can make the right noises about furriners and CORRUPT LABOUR?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-candidate-hartlepool-election-spent-23980318

No. Its somebody who really embodies all thats hated about old school Tories. A wealthy woman from the south (North Yorkshire most definitely is that to the true north (tm) ) who spent several years doing god knows what in the Caymans.

The Tories excellent response to this coming out was to go on the attack and accuse the Labour candidate of doing the same....

The response to which was he spent several years volunteering in Uganda helping the needy, whilst she spent several years in the Caymans enriching herself.

Though I do suspect they're just showboating knowing they're going to win anyway so they might as well take advantage of the situation to get someone awful and useful in power

[Sheilbh]

Yeah it seems crazy when your opponent chooses a carpetbagger to also choose one.

In Greensill news the head of the civil service and civil service head of ethics have been giving evidence - which has been going badly.

They were asked about the appointment of Bill Crothers (then head of government procurement) to the board of Greensill. Apparently this was approved by the senior civil servants at the time who decided it did not need ministerial approval. It was decided that there wasn't a conflict of interest or ethical concern because Greensill didn't have any public sector contracts at the time

Edit: On the other hand I am really struck with the UK left at the minute. I've read loads about Biden's unexpectedly radical agenda and getting stuff done that's pleasing the left - and I feel like that's because they helped him get elected and are now cashing their chips and also holding him to account over what they want. Meanwhile not a day goes by when I don't see some UK left Twitter pile-on on the Labour Party/Starmer - at worst it'll help Labour lose, at best Labour will win despite the left and govern in that way